Thursday, July 21, 2011

Utah rules against natural father. Again. And again. Adoption is big business there.

Nothing to smile about today

Why do I hate Utah? Let me count the ways:
a) The Utah attitude towards single parents is "Grab and Go," as in, We'll grab the baby from any state and then make it nearly impossible for the natural parent--either one--to get the child back, even mere minutes after the papers are signed.

Point A is enough today because we have to report yet another case where father's rights were usurped. John Wyatt, a father from Virginia where his daughter was born, lost his appeal earlier this week to overturn the adoption of his daughter in Utah, finding he did not meet the deadline for asserting his parental rights. Wait til you read the deadline.

Wyatt and Baby Emma--ABC News

Now this is a man who was lied to by nurses or Someone at the hospital where she was born; the mother, Emily Colleen Fahland, signed the relinquishment papers two days later, while still in Virginia, with a Utah (aka Mormon**) agency, which then whisked the baby away to Utah, where possession of a child is none-tenths of ownership. Eight days after that Wyatt filed for visitation and custody petitions in Virginia--five days before the adopting couple, Thomas and Chandra Zarembinski, initiated an adoption proceeding in Utah. We've covered the gory details before* so I won't repeat them all here, but you end up with a sour distaste in your mouth for the whole damn state as its political and legal system is no more than an arm of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Saints? I have another word for them: baby stealers.

Wyatt's petition to raise his own child was denied by the Utah Supreme Court on the technicality that he did not meet the required deadline for asserting his parental rights. Apparently filing in the state where the child was born does not count, even if he did not know where the birth mother had run off with the child. In Utah, relinquishment is final and irrevocable when the papers are signed. God knows what they do about returns on washing machines or faulty air conditioners, but I wouldn't shop there.

Wyatt was barred from using the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act...because he did not first argue it in a lower court. Of course, a Utah court has given the girl, known as Baby Emma, to the nuclear family of the Zarembinskis while the case was being adjudicated, as is usually done in these cases. As the cases drag through the courts, lawyers for the adopting people (Grab & Goers) then argue that it is not in the child's best interest to let the natural parents raise him or her. Wyatt told the Salt LakeTribune: "This is what Utah does. They steal people's babies. It is like big game to these people." We couldn't agree more.

My memoir of surrender

Wyatt pledges to continue his fight all the way to the Supreme Court: "Whether I have to wait until she is of age, I want to be a part of her life. There is nothing anyone can do to stop me from being a part of her life."

His mother, Jeri Wyatt, added: "They are not going to steal this baby because that's all it is--a kidnapping. Shame in Utah for crafting biased, unconstitutional laws against unmarried biological fathers. The state of Utah has been doing this for some years and they'll continuing doing it, and somebody has to stop it." Wyatt is still pursuing a law suit in Virginia for being fraudulently deprived of his parental rights. As for Utah and how they deal with adoption, once they have the baby? The Tribune reports:

"Utah’s statute requires unmarried biological fathers to follow a strict time frame, regardless of where they reside or where a child is born, to preserve any right to object to an adoption. The biological father must show he did not and could not have known an adoption was being considered; begin court proceedings to establish his paternity before a birth mother gives consent for an adoption to proceed; and demonstrate he is fully committed to assuming his parental responsibilities, such as paying for pregnancy-related expenses.

At least half a dozen unmarried biological fathers have waged unsuccessful efforts to stop adoptions in Utah. In one case, the court found a father was on notice when his pregnant girlfriend told him she was in Utah; in another, the court said a father failed to adequately show how he would provide for a child.

In the Baby Emma case, the court for the first time reviewed whether a federal kidnapping law applied to an adoption proceeding."

Actually, the court did not get into whether this statute could ever apply once the surrender papers were signed because the judgment did not discuss the provisions of the kidnapping law; the suit was denied on a technicality. The judges did state that Wyatt failed to meet the "strict requirements for unmarried birth fathers." I'd like to hear of a single case in an contested adoption where a birth father did manage to meet those requirements.

How it all began

Incidentally, the name of the adoption agency in this case of legal kidnapping? A (sic) Act of Love. You would think they would get the grammar right. Their website lists 19 upcoming "situations," but it is really a list of unborn children (with their sex and race noted) who will be sacrificed on the altar of adoption. Let this count for b) as to why I hate Utah. "Babies for sale" would be a more realistic heading than the euphemistic "situation." That's almost real live baby (it's a list of upcoming due dates, apparently) they are talking about there, not a "situation." I wonder how those situations are going to grow up and feel about being treated like so much chattel.

In one of our earlier blogs* we quoted adoption legal expert, Joan Hollinger, who called Utah's earlier decisions in the Baby Emma case "outrageous" because Wyatt filed for custody in Virginia just eight days after Emma's birth. Utah laws and court decisions, she said, "make it virtually impossible for an out-of-state father to prevent the adoption of an out-of-wedlock child when the mother is determined to go forward."

Utah, noted the Washington Post, is "culturally conservative, and lawyers say the powerful Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, with its emphasis on family values, has strongly encouraged adoption-friendly laws."

We'll call them what they are: anti-natural family laws. Shame on Utah. Shame on a system that takes children from good and willing parents, whether mothers or fathers, who want to raise them. Despite what I expect to hear from LDS social workers, shame on the LDS church that supports this kind of reordering of the natural order of family.Shame on Utah.--lorraine

___________________________

New information came from our astute and informed readers: see comments for more details about this shocking case.

52 comments
:

Where's the U.S. Constitution in all of this!? I'm sure Wyatt is protected! Utahans are not supposed to be mixing Church and State to cure, and punish, single parenthood - it's tantamount to "praying the gay away!"

These kidnappers of babies are criminal! And, criminals usually don't know good grammar! [You are so funny, Lorraine!]

Let's get that "Father's Rights Organization" and other such organizations to help John Wyatt! Get this s--t out in the media bigtime! I see the head of the above group on television from time to time, on The Dr. Phil Show, and the like.

I contacted the savvy Gloria Allred via her website and asked for help getting this out into the media; she so good at these kinds of cases! I left this blog address and my blogcast address with her. I hope that's ok?

The mother actually never went to Utah. She signed consents in Virginia and the prospective adopters then flew the baby to Utah. They also committed fraud by lying to get ICPC approved. They said the father's location was unknown even though the mother had provided it.

INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING FORM ICPC-100AINTERSTATE COMPACT ON THE PLACEMENT OF CHILDREN REQUESTForm ICPC-100A is the sending agency’s formal written notice to the receiving state of its intention to make an interstate placement and a request for finding as to whether the placement would or would not be contrary to the interests of the child. With most placements it is also a formal request for a home study. Following review by the receiving state, it is the official notification that the proposed placement may or may not be made. A favorable finding means that the placement can be made in rights and obligations set forth in the Compact, primarily those contained in Article V, Retention of Jurisdiction.Form ICPC-100A must accompany all requests for placement to which the Compact is applicable....

Thanks, Rebecca for bringing this to our attention. It just gets worse...From the court papers in this case:

On February 17, 2009, the Prospective Parents receivedapproval from the administrator of the Interstate Compact on ChildPlacement to travel to Utah with Baby E.Z.The next day, Mr. Wyattinitiated custody and visitation proceedings in a Virginia Juvenileand Domestic Relations Court (the Virginia court).¶5 On February 23, 2009, while the Virginia custody andvisitation action was proceeding, the Prospective Parents filed aPetition for Adoption in Utah district court.

These adoptive-vultures are not going to look too favorable in the eyes of Baby Emma when she turns 18 years of age and her real dad shows her all this evidence of how hard he fought for her - it would seem like these prospective adopters gotta' be mentally-ill!

Who would want somebody else's daughter knowing that she's so much wanted by her natural father and the complete natural tribe!? Wouldn't you kind of fear for your Life? What kind of people would do this?

Well, of course, WE, at First Mother Forum know? Don't we?

Did this adoption actually take place? And when? Is the real dad appealing today in 2011?

In the end, will the 'adoptive parents' win once their daughter is old enough to figure out that they kidnapped her? What kind of information will pop up when she googles their names? Karma will be a b-word.

I have collected a number of screen shots that show this agency , while listed as "non-profit," was/perhaps still is owned by a woman attorney who operates out of the LDS complex. It is one of a number of agency listings for the same outfit, differing only in their names. If you send me your email address, I'll send you a series of pdf files that will show you the details.

This agency is one of three that sued the Utah Dept. of Human Services, which had sought to put a stop to the importation of pregnant women to Utah, something the DHS claimed was a breach of the Interstate Compact. Larry Jenkins, representing the three agencies, managed to win the case, so what I call the predator agencies are free to wheel and deal in all states, whisking the pregnant women off to Utah to give birth. In the Baby Tamia case, the child was already born, but she was lured there - then threatened to be left without return plane fare if she didn't relinquish her baby.

In addition, I suppose you know Act of Love is a member of NCFA. At least they were - I haven't checked lately. And the agency director, whose only qualification to operate an agency is her experience as an adoptive mother, was named an Angel in Adoption in 2004. (my comment: gag!!!!!!)

It's all the birthmother's fault! If she didn't LIE there would be no heart ache and lost. All the time when one "hears" stories like this, it's because the bmother has lied. There needs to be a federal law to punish females like this!

"In the end, will the 'adoptive parents' win once their daughter is old enough to figure out that they kidnapped her? "

That is very hard to say. She might be angry but she might not.In famous custody cases where the child has grown up, generally they "love the one they're with", whether it be bio parent or adoptive parent, even when the prospective adoptive parents broke the law and ran to a state where they could not be prosecuted.

The party who won raises the kid with the narrative that the other party was the bad guy, and if the kid has a pretty good life otherwise, they just accept it. That is what happened in the DeMartino/Scarpetta case with Baby Lenore in the early 70s, where the adoptive parents fled when the child was legally awarded to the birth mother. As an adult, Lenore did a magazine interview praising her adoptive parents. No interest in knowing the natural mother.

On the other side, "Baby Jessica/Anna whose natural parents got her back is happy with them and no interest in the people who had her for 18 months or so.

This LDS s--t is just another example of how societal legal LAWS are overtaken by societal MORES [the rules your cheap neighbors - usually, the majority, but not always - make up]

Our U.S. Constitution is very clear that all SINGLE parents have the absolute right to parent their children. No coercion of any sort will be tolerated to extricate kids from single parents!

BUT, looky-here:

YOUR NEIGHBORS, the LDS and other adoption-adorers, say, "Not so fast! We want those kids! You have no right to your illegitimate bastards! We'll latch onto them and make them, eh, kind of acceptable."

WHO IS WINNING!?

An analogy would be driving on the freeway:

Our U.S. Laws clearly state that the speed limit is 60 or 65 miles an hour.

BUT, lo and behold:

YOUR NEIGHBORS say the speed limit in the outer fast lane can be just as fast as you wanna' be, and you better get the hell outta' the way if you're just going to do the meager speed limit in the fast lane, or you're dead meat! You could even be killed from road-rage! You can be killed from a societal rule or more!

WHO IS WINNING!?

The following is our goal, as I see it:

[ 1 ] ADOPTION ABOLITION, this would be the legal maneuver. [Please don't give me the example of the 10 out of a million kids who may actually require adoption by strangers!]

[ 2 ] CHANGING SOCIETAL MORES, one of which would be: KEEP YOUR FILTHY HANDS OFF OF KIDS THAT DON'T BELONG TO YOU!!! DON'T TOUCH!!! This would be a societal maneuver, hence more difficult to change, as you can see by my 2 aforementioned examples. I mean, the laws are on the books! Why are singles still being tricked out of their offspring!?

Yes, the father filed a civil lawsuit in federal court in Virginia for the fraud that took place in Virginia. That was where I found the information that they left out the father's location on the ICPC paperwork. Apparently Virginia will send an official notice to the father if he is named and then he gets I believe 10 days to register. He never got that notice in this case because they left his contact information out... despite knowing it, since the baby's mother gave his name and current address/phone number....

I had read the entire lawsuit back when it was filed but now I can't find a place to download it again without registering.

"In the end, will the 'adoptive parents' win once their daughter is old enough to figure out that they kidnapped her? "

Food for thought. I think that if I learned while a child living with my APs that one of my first parents had tried hard to keep me that it would actually have made me feel more secure in my adoptive family. In other words I would see that my APs fought tooth and nail to keep me whereas my NPs I would have looked at from the standpoint that they had given me away. I'm not saying this is right but I think children are primarily creatures of emotion and that seeing the parents that I am living with do everything possible to keep me in the family could have made me feel secure and that that is where I belonged. Certainly, as an adult I would be able to understand the coercion that my n-mother was under but I'm not so sure that as a child I would have looked at my APs as kidnappers.

I found my download of the federal lawsuit on my computer, though I can't find the site where I downloaded it months ago. It's quite long (64 pages). It makes the maternal grandparents look absolutely horrible, and if it's accurate I would place much of the blame on them.

Some interesting facts:

the "adoptive" kidnappers paid $35,000-$50,000 to the agency

the maternal grandparents hired and paid for the mother's lawyer, who encouraged her to make false statements to the father. She has a different lawyer now, has publicly staetd through that lawyer that she regrets what happened, and wanted joint custody or visitation if the father won.

The same day Emma was born, Zarembinskis (the prospective adopters) signed an At Risk Placement Agreement that stated they were aware one or both of the biological parents had not terminated their rights and the agency was absolved of responsibility if the adoption was challenged.

The sections on the Interstate Compact for Placement of Children documents that should have included the father's name and address were just filled in with question marks, despite the mother offering the address and phone number of the father.

Virginia requires a 3 day waiting period before any parental rights can be relinquished. After only one day however the mother was allowed to sign a waiver giving up any rights Virginia law gave her.

I wish I could link to it, as I said it's rather long and depressing but it reveals just how horribly everyone behaved. But I have only found it again on sites that require a suscription.

The case is "Wyatt et al v. McDermott et al" if anyone has access to legal sites and wishes to download it.

Here are my two cents. I agree that eventually "Baby Emma" (How old is she now?) will eventually find out about this "situation." But I don't think it will turn out like it should. I have seen far too many parents (either in adoption or custody battles) "taint" the view of the other parent to the child. My cousin's adoptive son's biological father committed suicide when he was an infant. The Biological dad's parents are extremely loving and good people and desperately wanted to have a relationship with their deceased son's only child. The Biological mother of the child told him horrible lies about them, and to this day he thinks they are terrible people. He has NEVER met them. He is either 19 or 20 years old. Just because a child is old enough to legally meet them, doesn't mean the psychological damage hasn't already been done. My cousin always wanted him to have a relationship with them, but "the child's" mother's lies scared the child too much. He doesn't believe us when we tell him what wonderful people they are and how much they want to meet him. I worry for "Baby Emma" that instead of hearing true stories of how much her dad wanted her, she will hear made-up stories that make him look bad so they can justify their stealing her. As far as Utah Adoption laws are concerned, they are a joke. I live here so it is ok to voice my opinion. They are completely geared towards adoption. I look at several first mother's blogs and consistently see how they regret their decision. I feel Utah is in a "rush" to finalize. I honestly don't know why. I know "they" say it is better for the child to have it done quickly. I think it is quite the opposite. But then again the divorce laws here are messed up too. When I went to get a divorce after nine months with no children I had to wait three months to get it. But anyone with kids gets it immediately after they take one class. Is it just me or should people who have kids together wait three months and not people who no longer have any legal ties to each other?? Another interesting fact: Mrs. R's attorney was the very same Larry Jenkins you mentioned in your post. He is the one who represented her family when the biological father strongly contested the adoption. Another interesting fact: An Act of Love has complete Non Profit status but all of the employees make significant incomes. I know this because I am actually friends with one of the main workers there. So even though this agency seems like it is in place to find children homes, it is also in place to give a lot of people paychecks. It all comes down to money. If adoptions were "free" the agencies wouldn't put ads in low income neighborhoods far across the country looking for "unwanted" children. What a lovely thing for adopted children to find out later in life. They were featured in a want ad of unwanted people. One last thing, my neighbor recently adopted from "An Act of Love." They literally tell the "prospective adoptive parents" that it should only take a month or two to adopt a black or special needs child and a slightly longer wait if they want a "white" child. They actually charge them different amounts depending on race and special needs. If the baby is black the adoption typically costs around $15,000 to $20,000. A white child costs around $30,000 to $40,000. If this agency truly cared about finding homes for these children, why would they price them differently??? Why would they make people pay even close to that amount? Because it is big business. That's why. And the birth fathers "threaten" to take away their "livelihoods." Too bad "birth fathers" have no value in Utah. It has long since been proven that children do better when their biological father is involved in their lives.

One more thing I forgot to mention is adoption doesn't always (and I mean pretty much never) turns out to be a fairytale. My friend adopted twins from the Ukraine about 3 years ago. Since then, the daughters have displayed extremely dysfunctional behaviors and mannerisms. One of the twins kills the family pets and if she can't kill them she poisons their food and tries to strangle them in the bathroom. My friend has come to the heart wrenching decision to relinquish custody of the twin that is killing and harming the pets and other children at school. The problem is no one else wants to adopt a mentally unstable soon to be 12 year old. So my friend is looking to place her in Foster care. The state says they charge the parents with neglect and abandonment for relinquishing their rights. Plus they will charge them $1000 to $2000 a month to care for her. If only the laws wouldn't have allowed for International adoption in the first place, this family wouldn't have been torn apart. The Father and Mother are currently separated over this issue. I personally think International adoption should be forbidden.

Wow, Anonymous from Utah. It is worse in that state than I imagined. Thanks for the information and comment.

Agencies want babies ASAP because they keep the keep the paying clients, the adoptive parents, happiest that way. What I do not understand is how the laws of Utah can prevail in Virginia, when all that happened was that the unscrupulous A Act of Love baby-brokers turned up in the state of Virginia, the mother Emiy Fahland signed the relinquishment papers provided by them--BUT SHE WAS IN VIRGINIA AND A RESIDENT OF THAT STATE, RIGHT?

So ho did the laws of that religious- oligarchy state apply? Gay marriages that are legal in one state are not recognized in others. What gives? Anything goes when there is money to be made and babies to be redistributed to God-fearing Mormons?

I was not surprised to hear that the infamous Larry Jenkins was Mrs. Redfern's lawyer. He must be the go-to guy when taking a baby from his natural parents. We can only hope karma bites him in the ass one day.

I had read that Fahland initially was back with the father, John Wyatt, and they were pursing this case together, but she is barely mentiond inthe recent stories. That leads me to assume they are not together in this. Anybody have an update?

Just read your comment: thanks for the input and information. It makes the case ever sicker. What kind of people would oppose the natural parent of a child to keep that baby except some real moral creeps. This is so unethical, just like the Benjamin Wyrembek case, but despite the screamin' and hollarin' and shameful carrying on of the couple who had him, Christy and Jason Vaughn, Wyrembek prevailed.

The mother is not a party to the lawsuit on either side. Those being sued include the Zarembinskis, McDermott (the Virginia laywer the maternal grandparents hired), Jenkins, the Act of Love agency, and the social worker from Act of Love. Based on the lawsuit and what is alleged in it I do not think Mr. Wyatt blames her but blames her parents. I don't know if they still have any kind of relationship at all (I had heard that they were speaking, but not dating anymore, at some point) but her last public statement through her lawyer was that she really regretted going through with it and wished she and John Wyatt were coparenting the child instead. Mr. Wyatt has said he is willing to give her visitation if she wants, if he got his daughter back.

And yes it's a lot like that case except fortunately for Mr. Wyrembek and his son the Indiana Supreme Court recognized the jursidiction of the state of birth.

What particularly bothered me about the Vaughns was they took that poor little boy on national TV and talked about how horrible his life would be if his dad got him, right in front of him. He must have been so scared! I hope he has forgotten the Vaughns by now. It's sick what they did to him.

Dateline NBC is doing a story on this and have given John a tentative date of August 19. So far I've noticed the story only seems to have appeared in some local papers in Utah. I think there will be an astounding response when it goes national.Clare

From what I know of Dateline NBC if they are doing a show on this then it should be favorable to our side. This could be a major coup for us and will bring this issue to a national forum whereas right now it seems to be only local. I only wish they had interviewed Lorraine and Jane as experts on the subject. Then we'd really have something to sing about :)

Why doesn't he just kidnap her. Virginia already ruled him custody and even thought they have jurisdiction Utah refused. So all he has to do is kidnap her and get back to Virginia. You can't kidnap a child that is legally yours so Virginia won't accept any charges against him and Utah police have no authority outside of their state and sense it's really a conflict between two state governments the feds are unlikely to get involved unless as mediation by the supreme court at which point they would most likely side with the father, and in the worst case charge him with breaking and entering which could be declared justifiable if they sided with him which they likely would.

i am so disgusted by utah. women complain about deadbeat dads yet we see several who wanted their kids but utah kidnapped them. i think utah and a act of love adoption agency should be paying millions to those fathers and they need to try to get ahold of the fathers first before assuming they give up their rights but then again why do that when they can legally kidnap babies and get away with it. shame on utah lets start a huge media frenzy and put a end to this so called adoption

i agree he should kidnap the baby and then when hes in virginia they can say virginia does not follow utah law. i mean the baby and the parents lived in virginia and the baby was born in virginia. so why go clear to utah for adoption. hmmmm well we see why know. their are so many deadbeat dad but yet these men actually wanted to raise their child. how will utah explain to that child we they grow up that yes one of your parent wanted you but he took longer then 20 days to contest it so he was out of luck. i it was me i would sue the state of utah for keeping me from my parents. i think utah better save up some money i see alot of lawsuits in the future. if i were the men i would constantly go on tv so when the kids grow up they can find their parents then together sue utah. alos the act of love agency should be shut down because all they are doing is kidnapping the babies and getting by with it. i think people should stay on this until the utah law changes

This is disturbing. How can this happen? It makes absolutely no sense. The people adopting this child are pathetic. How could someone steal a child from their biological father? After watching Dateline it seems that the adoption agency and family were quite aware of the laws, and manipulated it in their favor. That poor little girl.

I have never posted a blog in response to a news story. But, after watching this friday night, I couldn't sleep, because I was so outraged at this injustice. It is nothing more than legally sanctioned kidnapping. I realize that this type of case can be very nuanced and "the law is the law", but this system is designed to work against biological fathers who want to keep their children. I also understand that the defense attorney was just doing his job, but he is the type of person that gives lawyers such a bad name. What a weasel!!! I tried to put myself in the place of the adoptive parents. I cannot imagine keeping a child when I knew that his biological father wanted to retain custody of him. They're just as much at fault for this travesty as anybody. I wish Mr. Wyatt luck in finally getting justice, but if/when it happens, he will undoubtedly have missed some of the best years of his daughter's life.

I've never posted a blog in response to an article or tv show, but after watching Dateline on friday night, I couldn't sleep. My blood just boils at the injustice of this. I realize that these cases can be very nuanced and "the law is the law". I also am very thankful that we are a nation of laws. But there also needs to be some room for the human element in any legal proceeding. There can be a difference between getting an outcome that is perfectly legal and getting justice. Even if the outcome here was legal (and I actually believe a very good case can be made for fraud), there is no question that justice was not served. This is really nothing more than legally sanctioned kidnapping. I put myself in the place of the adoptive parents. Just because someone might be considered an educated "professional" doesn't mean they have any integrity. I can't imagine how they can live with themselves knowing that this little girl's father wanted to retain custody. Sickening!!!

I felt the same way after watching Dateline last night. This is terrible; how could the adoptive parents take this child knowing that her biological father wanted to keep her. Do you not have a conscience? A heart? There isn't anyone better to raise their child than a biological parent; noone can love a child like their own blood parent and family. I've read other Web sites that the biological father should think about Emma and not rip her from her home. Maybe the adoptive parents should have thought about that from the get-go and instead of being selfish and only thinking about themselves, given Emma back to her daddy. What about all the deception; the hospital sneaking her out the side door, cross-outs on paperwork?? Isn't there something illegal about that and shouldn't that be considered as evidence against someone. Our God is a just God and I'm going to be praying diligently about this. This adoption agency, the Attorney General (with that smirk on his face during the interview just made me sick), State of Utah, you should be ashamed of yourself. Something needs to be done to stop this unethical practice!

I live in Utah. I never went to Church, since a kid, born in '53. When I moved back up to Happy Valley, I go to Church, cos I dont want to hang out with the Druggys where I live, poor, health issues. 3 weeks ago, I was told in the Womens' Meeting, that, never having been Married, more specifically, I will be immortal, but wont have Eternal Life. I thought staying for the Lesson on Eternal Marriage would help, cos Id had a baby out of wedlock, and could use a little more decency, tho am not beating up on MySelf. They said in the AfterLife, UnMarried Women (People? I dont think so. Polygamy is still there in the afterlife, to make more Planets of People, the wives duty in the afterlife is to procreate) Will 'Administer To Those Who Have Had Temple Marriages. Constitutional Law Needs To Be Applied, If They Have This Belief, How Does It Affect How They Treat People?? When I was an unwed Mother, I have no family, and went to the Church. They said their Policy is, if You are UnMarried, You are to place the Baby for Adoption. It should be sought out, and used, Constitutionally, if Utah is having trouble, now. You girls make Me cry. We R Told We R Crazy.

I would like to know how many of you that are leaving comments on this blog have ever actually adopted. I do not defend nor attack Act of Love on the Dateline story, but there is obviously some serious instability with the birth parents for these kinds of situations to ever even arise. Having adopted our boy one year ago after 3 failed attempts at adopting, I am grateful for the strict adoption laws of Utah. Is it any better for a birthmother to decide to take a baby back 6 weeks after birth when she chose not to keep him? Many adoptive parents spend years hoping that precious baby will come into their home. Before passing judgement, think for a moment how it would kill you to have a baby taken from you that you thought was legally yours simply because a birth mother changed her mind or a birth father finally showed up after the birth. Where was he for 9 months?

I know fishy situations will arise with adoption issues in all agencies depending on who's telling the story. But to lable and entire state, religion, or people as baby grabbers, kidnappers, ect... proves your ignorance. Is every single dad a dead beat simply because you came across one in your lifetime? Focus on the story at hand and refrain from trying to take down everyone in your path to proving a point.

"This is Utah and Mormons we are talking about. One can't expect devil worshipers to respect the rule of law or even the law of the Creator.

Utah is a state full of mindless inbred's that have more in-common with the Taliban then the other 49 States in the Union"

Serioulsy? You hate the laws in Utah so now all of a sudden every mormon (correct term is LDS) is a devil worshiper and a mindless inbred that has commonalities with the Taliban?

I am LDS and a birth mother who does not necessarily agree with the extremely pro adoption stance the church takes, however, that does NOT make me a terrorist or a devil worshiper. Please refrain from your ignorant stereo types and blatant hatred towards the LDS church when that isn't even the issue at hand.

Also, at the last poster who just asked us (mostly first mothers) to TRY to empathize with an adoptive mother who could have her baby taken away...

news flash, we don't have to TRY, we already know how that feels because we lost our children to adoption...oh but wait, nobody feels bad for us because we didn't "want our children anyway" right?! That has to be one of the biggest misconceptions out there about us birth mothers and it's a shame that people like you will never understand the pain, sorrow and anguish we feel so you can raise our children. Most of us DID want our children very much but were coerced or had no support what so ever in parenting them ourselves.

If even one person had offered me support and some help I would have kept my son.

What if every adoptive couple who spent thousands of dollars buying a baby chose to give even a little bit of that money to an expectant mother with no support? Just think how that would change the situation and the lives of all involved? Then the birth mother and the adoptee would not have to live with loss for the entire life.

Except, that won't happen because what adoption is really about is an adoptive parent who is willing to pay anything for a baby...not really interested in what's best for the child like they claim.

They knew the father wanted the baby BEFORE they took her home. This wasn't something they found out after the fact, it was something the mother told the agency and as a result they were required to sign documents that they knew it was an at-risk adoption before the agency would even place the baby with them.

I also think if they wanted an adoption under Utah law it was wrong to remove a child from another state against the wishes of a parent. They should have adopted a child born in Utah. Virginia gave the father custody, he filed in time there and the baby was born there. What they did was completely indefensible. They chose to take the child and bond with the child knowing her father wanted her and would fight for her.

Amen, Rebecca. You went to the heart of the matter. The adoption agency A[n] Act of Love (Their grammatically incorrrect name bugs me) knew before there was a problem with the father not reinquishing his parental right; the adopters knew, and still they took the child and won't give her back.

Thomas and Chandra Zarembinski, who have John Wyatt's daughter, are lousy people, that's all. The date line show omitted their name. Too bad.

So now this story is beginning to sound more and more like a story from the Bible. Is it better to rip this child from the only home she's ever known just so John Wyatt will feel justice? Or is it better to think of what is best for the child? Do a little research on reactive attachment disorder and you will know what I am talking about.

All the legalities and lies aside, whatis best for the child from this point on? That is who matters now. John Wyatt and his girlfriend made a mistake getting pregnant when they may not have been ready to take on the role of being a stable parent, and the agency/adoptive parents were not truthful either. The only innocent one in all of this is the little girl. Why is no one speaking up for her? Where are the doctors to say how this can affect her future?

John Wyatt is the girl's FATHER. I don't see how he could possibly show his love for her more than by wanting to be the one to love her, provide for her and protect her. He is showing his concern for her well-being by wanting to step up to the plate and make sure she is safe and sound himself rather that leaving HIS CHILD in the care of strangers. And strangers who have certainly shown they have a questionable character by being willing to take a child when they knew that she had a bio-father who wanted to raise her.

Some people say that Mr. Wyatt should do the "selfless" thing and leave his daughter where she is. I really wonder how many people if faced with this same situation would not fight tooth and nail to get their child back. It is one thing to discuss this scenario in theory and quite another if this was your child in this situation.

I commend John Wyatt. I think many young men of his age would rather be out partying and dating that taking responsibility for his young daughter. He seems mature beyond his years.

Reading the blogs and comments, etc. it seems that about 2 out of 3 people are on our side. When Kate Snow mentioned the "this is the only family she's ever known and why would he want to remove her from that" I wish he had just looked her in the eye and said "because I AM HER FATHER".

Regarding "ripping the child from the only parents she has ever known" -- in two celebrated cases where courts overturned adoptions and ordered children placed with their fathers, Baby Richard and Baby Jessica, the children did just fine. Baby Richard was four and Baby Jessica two.

I don't have children but if I did I would fight until the day I died to get my child out of a home like the one poor Emma is stuck in right now. Anyone who would do what they did has no morals and they aren't fit to raise ANY child.

I am a woman and do not have children. I saw John Wyatt's story on "Dateline NBC" tonight (a rerun, I think). I am heartsick that in our country, biological fathers are considered second-class citizens. How can the law not protect John Wyatt's rights?

As for the person who posted about the adoptive child who killed the family's pets, as an animal lover, when I hear these stories, I want to shout at the adoptive parents - YOU CANNOT HAVE PETS IN YOUR HOUSE AS LONG AS THAT CHILD LIVES THERE. Insanity is repeating the same behavior and expecting a different result. if you have an animal killer in your household you cannot have pets. Plain and simple.

I am sickened over this. My Father God in Heaven would be sickened over this; a Church organization is involved? I am a Christian and I cannot understand how this is possible for one state to over rule all other states judgments in this manner. This man was given custody rights. It is unjust and wrong. I Pray this man and many others get their children back. It is an outrage that this country could even pass a law like this. Shame on you Utah! My Prayers and tears for any person having been betrayed in this way will be heard in the highest of places where God is in control. The people stealing babies (yes it is stealing) will one day stand and give an account for their actions. Has anyone ever asked himself or herself how these will children feel when they grow up and find out the truth that there biological parent wanted them. That a state ruled against it due to the fact that they didn‘t sign some piece of paper to try to stop adoption of their child that they never gave up for adoption in the first place? The fathers name was on the birth certificate. The mother knew the address where he lived and she lied. Why is it there is not a law against that? She should be punished for allowing another state to take her child out of the state, in my opinion illegally. It doesn’t make sense. Oh and Utah they are not your children to give away!

I just caught this last night on Dateline and my heart breaks for this young man. What a nightmare and it's mind boggling to me that this can happen in our country! Utah's laws are so self righteous, it's just disgusting. I never realized that a baby could be kept from a birth parent who has not signed their rights away. Utah is just downright scary...I wonder what else goes on there that we don't know about.

This is a little reminiscent of the David Goldman situation, where his son Sean was in Brazil and it took him years and years to get him back!

A beautiful song from a Korean adoptee

From the New York Times

"Lorraine Dusky, a writer who relinquished a daughter as a young single mother in New York State in 1966, supports opening the records. She reported in her 2015 memoir that in the handful of states that offered women the opportunity to remove their names from original birth certificates, only a small fraction of women — fewer than 1 percent — chose to do so." --Don’t Keep Adopted People in the Dark by Gabrielle Glaser, June 19, 2018

Who Are We?

From the New York Times

"On FirstMotherForum.com, a blog that discusses issues among women who had given children up for adoption, Lorraine Dusky, one of the site’s authors, praised the series (ABC's 10-episode Find My Family): 'Maybe this will be heard by people who think it is unloyal somehow for a person to search out his or her roots, parents, family, when it is a most natural desire of consciousness.'--Two Reality Shows Stir Publicity and Anger"--Dec. 6, 2009.

&amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;br /&amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;

This blog takes cookies.

"It shouldn't take a miracle to find people you are related to by blood."--Jenn Gentlesk